Maybe our comments about the skyline prompted the vote, and they are having a little good natured fun with it. Of course it has nothing to do with the actual campaign. I just found it amusing.

And keep posting anonymously. It suits.

But even if I hadn’t, it doesn’t address the RELEVANT issue, which is the badly designed website.

Juvenile.

I’m sure you’ll find it incredibly biased. If you don’t, then I’m probably doing something wrong.

It is rumored that you have had the opportunity to meet and interview the aforementioned Belenchia. Will you be reporting on your interview?

I was just starting to feel the love between us, when suddenly….

OK, let’s see what Chris thinks about the candidate and let’s see what else besides website graphics the candidates have to offer. I trust you that there will be more, substantive reporting to come.

I’m all ears now…

Based on what? You’re generating that bias, not the Spark. I’ve repeatedly said that I know nothing about Belenchia or his politics. We DO know something about Cate Ryba’s politics — a lot of it is on her campaign site — and there’s a chatter of excitement about that, but I don’t think enough is known about Belenchia to even say.

As I write this, Chris is interviewing Belenchia to find out what he’s all about. We have standardized questions for all the candidates. We have something like six weeks to get all kinds of info from everyone running for office. Chill out. Making fun of a terrible website isn’t the same as a political hatchet job, so calm down.

“More is known about her…..by whom? By the three of you?”

By anyone who looks at the relevant campaign websites, which is what the post is about. Ryba has a reasonably informative site, Belenchia has one with the wrong city in the background. There’s no bias in pointing that out. If the situations were reversed, we’d still talk about it.

As far as knowing more about all the candidates, we’ll know more when we’re done interviewing them, until then, we’ll talk about what’s available. That’s not bias, that’s the result of being volunteers with day jobs and limited time.

“The whole hoopla about the website is so petty and unbalanced it calls the author into question. It means nothing. Could it be that you all (and I) are new media geeks who place too much emphasis on “web images” relative to offline efforts and published material? Something to think about.”

This is ONE POST out of perhaps two or three dozen we’ll run prior to the election. The only person trying to make it into the definitive Spark coverage of the topic is you. Is it trivial to talk about a photo on a website? Obviously!

But it’s also revealing of the attention to detail behind the campaign. It’s like the M&M riders on Van Halen’s performance contacts: Failure to do something as simple as getting the right city in the background of a campaign website hints at a lack of professionalism, interest and ability in the part of Belenchia’s campaign itself. It looks lazy, and it’s casually insulting to pretty much anyone who cares about the city of Spartanburg having its own identity.

It IS RELEVANT. Trivial on the grand scheme, sure, but it’s on topic and totally fair to talk about. And it’s interesting. But it’s also not the extent of our coverage on the subject. If it was, you’d have a great point: How utterly shallow we’d have to be to think someone should choose a political candidate based on a background photo.

Sheesh … Give us some credit. We’re a small group of volunteers doing the best we can with a very limited set of resources. A regular newspaper can get all this stuff knocked out in a couple of days, but we have to pace ourselves.

Unless I’m very much mistaken, the only person who sees this as the extent of our local election coverage is you. I think everyone else assumes, as one would with any media outlet, that this is one small post among dozens to come. We’re working on getting more, I assure you.

You are clearly a level-head, so let me post a response here. I’ve studied sociology and human behavior for 22 years so I have a little experience with the subject. Biases can be subtle things. Often the biased person isn’t even aware of the bias he or she is presenting.

Example 1: There are several references to progressive politics here. You’re all carrying the banner. I haven’t said anything until now, but I would put myself firmly in that camp too. [ *disclosure!* ] Probably more so than any of you. There’s a subtle suggestion that Ryba is a progessive candidate and Belenchia is not. It’s there in your comments, look closely. Now, what’s that based on…..? I think you may see my point.

Example 2: I quote you: “More is known about Ms. Ryba, because of her work then Mr. Belenchia”…

More is known about her…..by whom? By the three of you? Yes! That’s who! So, you see there is a bias here, however subtle. I bet there are alot of folks that know about Belenchia. Ask around, ye journalists!

Example 3: The whole hoopla about the website is so petty and unbalanced it calls the author into question. It means nothing. Could it be that you all (and I) are new media geeks who place too much emphasis on “web images” relative to offline efforts and published material? Something to think about.

Example 4: There’s a separate post on this site anouncing Ryba’s candidacy with much fanfare. No such separate announcement for the other candidate.

I can see that the team here thinks it is unbiased, but I guess I’m asking all to take a closer look. From the outside, it doesn’t look that way.

But I do respect you all for engaging in the debate and not taking things (too) personally. We’re talking about behavior, not our souls.

I’m with Steve on this. Someone, and we don’t know who started up a website for one of the candidates and their choice of background was a less then wise one, considering the purpose for the website. The last time I looked there was little or no content about the candidate himself there, so little to comment about, other then the skyline in question was obviously not Spartanburg. For that I would say the web designer is at fault not the candidate.

Both candidates are qualified to run for office. We just don’t know yet who will be the better person for the job. More is known about Ms. Ryba, because of her work then Mr. Belenchia, but that doesn’t mean that he won’t make a fine councilman. We simply do not know yet.

Frankly the accusations as the supposed triad of Objective Observer, Journalism Objectivity and Non-Partisan Party, have made are clearly unfounded. I have read every single post and have yet to see one statement by Steve or the rest of the staff that implies we are supporting one single candidate at this time. That may change as we learn and draw closer to election time. But right now a nice neutral stance is clearly in place, as we work to gather information on all candidates running for local office.

Of course this individual is free to think what they please, based on whatever motivation they choose to use. Thankfully we are also free to think otherwise.

We’re not attached to, funded by, taking orders from or otherwise involved with any local political group, candidate or … anybody really. The Spark exists on its own, and it was like this long before the current election.

But, again, we’re OPENLY progressive. We make no claim to be neutral or objective, nor have we ever. There is a progressive, pro-local bias on the site, as should be obvious to anyone who reads it. There’s nothing clandestine here.

And pointing out that one of the local candidates has THE WRONG CITY in the background of his City Council election page isn’t a partisan attack. Belenchia (or whoever is in charge of his campaign) definitely has some explaining to do on that one, but it’s not a reflection of Belenchia so much as it is ineptness on the part of whoever put up the site. There are no specific comments about Belenchia the candidate on the site, other than saying his website sends a conflicting, amusing message.